Japenese 13,500 ton helicopter destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
If the lifts are in the fully "up" position would they hamper take-off and landing operations ? I agree that having to wait for the lift to be up is quite a pain for aircraft operations, but not more than thatswerve said:
cheers
Well, I read over the ESSM like the standard SAM in the 16DDH, I don´t know if in the future or from the beguinning. ESSM is entering service now in other countries. Would be logical to see them in a new vessel (2008-09) with a brand new combat system. I don´t know about the possible upgrade for the present japanese DD's.
It seems that the new ASW DD (19DD) will have SPY-1F(V) (an upgraded version of the Nansen's system). In that case ESSM is the most logical choice.
"Ships of the World" magazine had some months ago a lot of information on new and future japanese vessels... but my japanese knowledge is nearly "zero"
Regards
It seems that the new ASW DD (19DD) will have SPY-1F(V) (an upgraded version of the Nansen's system). In that case ESSM is the most logical choice.
"Ships of the World" magazine had some months ago a lot of information on new and future japanese vessels... but my japanese knowledge is nearly "zero"
Regards
That's the problem. You have to have the lifts absolutely fully up for take-off. I can't see why anybody would design that in, because although, in theory, with a small aircraft complement it could be worked round, it's much, much, better not to have to work round it. Every ship intended as an aircraft carrier that I can think of has deck edge lifts, presumably for that reason. And even a small problem with a lift puts your flight deck out of use, while with two deck edge lifts, a fault with one is a problem, not a disaster.contedicavour said:If the lifts are in the fully "up" position would they hamper take-off and landing operations ? I agree that having to wait for the lift to be up is quite a pain for aircraft operations, but not more than that
cheers
Question, while we're down the road of an Aircraft carrier for japan, would they be getting the US to train them in this operation, and if so, what is the limit to Japanese-US co-operation, as mentioned before, washington did not look upon a JMSDF carrier with favour, and probabley still don't. would they in fact force them to seek training and consultation with others, possibly Italy, France
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
You forgot the UK - if Japan asked for help operating a full carrier, I'm sure we'd help out. Heck, if they paid for it we might even build them one of the Queen Elizabeth class.icelord said:
contedicavour
New Member
Ehm we are not understanding the same thing by "through-deck" then.santi said:
On the Garibaldi and on the Cavour the lifts (both for G, one of the 2 for C) are on portside aft and fore of the superstructure. They do not hamper takeoff and landing operations at all.
On the Japanese ship the lifts are smack in the middle of the flight deck.
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
If it's a matter of training with F35s, then it's either the UK or us. If it's a matter of conventional take off and landing operations then it's the French.Musashi_kenshin said:You forgot the UK - if Japan asked for help operating a full carrier, I'm sure we'd help out. Heck, if they paid for it we might even build them one of the Queen Elizabeth class.
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Is the Sea Sparrow "classic" even in production anymore?
contedicavour
New Member
The Japanese have a huge stock of classic Sea Sparrows and several JMSDF VLS equipped DDGs carry it. I'm wondering when and how many ESSMs would be ordered to start replacing the old stock.Grand Danois said:
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
All the classics must be running short of shelflife in the near future...?contedicavour said:
contedicavour
New Member
May be... this would be a problem. Unless if locally produced, a bit like the Mistubishi copy of Harpoon (SSM1B)... in that case local industries can update them cheaply.Grand Danois said:
cheers
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
As of last year, Raytheon had been contracted to upgrade Japan's Mk48 launchers to fire the ESSM, so I am sure that the MSDF will be using it before the original Seasparrow missiles are unfit for use.Grand Danois said:
ironman5001
New Member
Do you think that they could use the Helo Carriers with Joint Strike Fighter?
I know Japan wants the F22 , but US Congress won't allow it , so JSF could be an option.
I know Japan wants the F22 , but US Congress won't allow it , so JSF could be an option.
stryker NZ
New Member
it would be possible if the japanese brought the VTOL version of the JSF, the helicopter destroyers look no less capable than the planned Canberra class ships of the RAN and there were talks about using the fighters off them (although i doubt that will happen). But it is still highly improbable given the nature of the japanese politics unless reforms are made in regards to article 9 of the constitution
Hyuuga is quite a lot smaller than the new Australian LHDs, has no ski-jump (though one could be added), & I'm not sure if the lifts could take F-35B.
BTW, betcha the second one is called Ise
- if so, I'll drink the local brew (champion beer in the great Japanese beer festival 2005) in her honour next time I visit the city of Ise. A nice drop.
Canberra Class:
Over 28,000t (more like 29,000t). They will be bigger/larger displacement than the spainish ships. Over 201 m of runway with a 15 degree ramp. Its over 230m long. It has a *huge* flexable space areas (as big as a CVF hanger?) designed around F-35 dimentions. It has two lifts (40+ ton capable take chinooks fine) that are clear of the take off area so one can be preped and take off while the other is decending. It has two weapons lifts. It has deck space for over 6 harriers/f-35 to be parked on deck with a helo. It can "carry" 30 harriers. It can hold over 1,300 personel. Even with its extensive capabilities people regard its carrier capabilities as poor.
The DDH are over 10,000t smaller, 32+ meters shorter, lack lifts that would comfortably handle a F-35, suitable weapon lifts, or a ramp, a massive hanger.
It proberly could handle a F-35B with a A2A load landing, refueling and taking off if it had no other function that refueling rearming F-35B stationed elsewhere. Even then with out a jump that would be pushing it.
Then again I preposed the same thing for the much larger Canberra class and it was generally thought as a bad idea over say more refueling aircraft.
Over 28,000t (more like 29,000t). They will be bigger/larger displacement than the spainish ships. Over 201 m of runway with a 15 degree ramp. Its over 230m long. It has a *huge* flexable space areas (as big as a CVF hanger?) designed around F-35 dimentions. It has two lifts (40+ ton capable take chinooks fine) that are clear of the take off area so one can be preped and take off while the other is decending. It has two weapons lifts. It has deck space for over 6 harriers/f-35 to be parked on deck with a helo. It can "carry" 30 harriers. It can hold over 1,300 personel. Even with its extensive capabilities people regard its carrier capabilities as poor.
The DDH are over 10,000t smaller, 32+ meters shorter, lack lifts that would comfortably handle a F-35, suitable weapon lifts, or a ramp, a massive hanger.
It proberly could handle a F-35B with a A2A load landing, refueling and taking off if it had no other function that refueling rearming F-35B stationed elsewhere. Even then with out a jump that would be pushing it.
Then again I preposed the same thing for the much larger Canberra class and it was generally thought as a bad idea over say more refueling aircraft.